Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are consequential on amendment No. 1 and therefore I suggest that we discuss amendment No. 1 and amendments Nos. 3 and 4, in the Minister's name, together.
Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1990: Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, subsection (1), between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following definition:
"`the Act of 1936' means the Courts of Justice Act, 1936;".
I also refer to amendments Nos. 3 and 4. These are purely drafting amendments that are desirable because of the frequency with which reference is made in the Bill to the Courts of Justice Act, 1936. They are technical amendments and I should be grateful if the House would accept them.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 2, subsection (1), lines 18 to 22, to delete the definitions of "judge" and "justice" and substitute the following:
" `judge', where used without qualification, means a judge of the Supreme Court, a judge of the High Court, a judge of the Circuit Court or a judge of the District Court;".
I move the amendment for the purposes of making a point about the status of the judges of the District Court. I propose that the definition of the word "judge" be extended to include judges of the District Court as well as judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court and the Circuit Court. As a consequence, I suggest that the definition of the word "justice" be deleted entirely.
I admit that if the Minister accepts the amendment various substantial consequential amendments would then have to follow. I have not set out down to insert all of those as amendments, but if the point is made at this stage — and I recognise that there is no Report Stage — then the Minister and his Department could address the issue in legislation, perhaps not today but on some other occasion.
Very briefly we should investigate the origins of the concept of "justice" as a title conferred on judges of the District Court. They should be addressed in their proper term and in all legislation pertaining to them judges sitting in the District Court should be described simply as judges. The term has come in some way to represent a reflection on their status and position. I know that individual members of the District Court Judiciary are very concerned about the issue, some perhaps more than others. It is in deference to them that I raise the point in the House this morning. The Bill presents an opportunity to do so.
The Constitution of 1937 refers to judges of all courts. The concept of justice of the District Court does not arise in that document at all. All judges, including those of the District Court, are appointed by the President under the Constitution and all judges of all courts are required to take the oath under that document. The concept of calling a person who sits in the District Court as a judge something other than a judge simply does not arise.
During the debate on the Bill we will more closely consider the provisions of two of the grounding Acts of the Legislature, both of which were brought in in 1961 to re-establish the Supreme Court, the High Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court. The first Act, the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Act, 1961, very briefly established constitutionally the various courts in our administration. It is interesting to note what is contained in section 5 in relation to the District Court. Section 5 (1) states:
a Court of First Instance, which shall be called An Chúirt Dúiche (The District Court), shall stand established.
Section 5 (2) states:
The District Court shall be constituted of the following judges—
(a) a judge who shall be styled "Uachtarán na Cúirte Dúiche" ("The President of the District Court"), and
(b) such number of other judges (each of whom shall be styled "Breitheamh den Chúirt Dúiche" ("Justice of the District Court")).
I am not a Gaelic scholar by any means, but I have asked those who do know the language much more fundamentally than I do about the direct and correct definition and interpretation of the word "Breitheamh". I am sure the Minister of State, who I know as a Gaeilgeóir, would agree that it means "judge". For some odd reason we give it a different nomendature in the Legislature, and say "justice".
That may seem a small point, but it does cause irritation to members of the Judiciary sitting in District Court who would like to be, and who deserve to be, addressed in their proper title as "Breitheamh", "Judge". I know that there is a long history going back to 1936 that those who sit in the District Court should be known in the English language as "justice". I argue that they should be addressed as judges of the District Court, as many of us have addressed them over the years.
That is my reason for moving the amendment. It is not central to the issues of the Bill and I shall not dwell any further on it. I acknowledge that there is no Report Stage, which I regret, and I acknowledge that many consequential amendments would be necessary, but I hope that at some stage the Department and the Minister will examine the issue and establish judges of all courts with the same status in name if not in other respects.
At the outset, I should like to state that the specific purpose of the Bill — and I think Deputy McCartan acknowledges this — is to provide for certain limited changes to the superannuation entitlements of the Judiciary and certain court officers in line with similar changes introduced since 1970 to the superannuation courts for other groups within the Public Service. While I am satisfied that the changes proposed in the Bill can be justified, I am not disposed to extend the scope of the legislation to provide for further significant improvements. To do so would be clearly out of line with the need for severe restraint in all areas of public expenditure, including the Exchequer pay and pensions legislation. That could lead to repercussive claims from other groups and would significantly alter the character of the legislation. The proposed amendment would represent a step in the removal of the distinctions that have always existed between the pension provisions of the Supreme Court, High Court and Circuit Court judges on the one hand and district justices on the other hand.
The Courts of Justice Act, 1924 provided that Supreme Court, High Court and Circuit Court judges would qualify for maximum pension on completion of 15 or more years' service. For District Court justices the legislation provided that they would be pensionable under the superannuation Acts as are civil servants, that is, a maximum pension after 40 years' service. Since then the only fundamental change in pension terms made for Supreme Court, High Court and Circuit Court judges was the requirement introduced in 1953 that to qualify for a pension in the normal course they must have attained the age of 65 years.
For district justices, the basic position changed as follows: the Courts of Justice Act, 1936, introduced judicial type pension terms with maximum entitlement after 30 years service. The Courts of Justice Act, 1953, reduced the qualifying period of service for maximum pension to 20 years and also applied the provision that a justice, like the other judges must have reached the age of 65 for pension in the normal course. District justices would benefit considerably from the Bill as drafted including in particular from the proposal in section 2 to permit temporary service to reckon for pension purposes. This would enhance the pension of many justices. It would also enable some who otherwise would not do so to qualify for full pension. Accordingly, I do not propose to alter the situation. To do so could lead to repercussive claims from other groups and would significantly alter the character of this legislation. This is not intended.
The Minister has broadened the debate from what I intended. I was simply seeking to address the general issue of the title and address to be given in legislation to people who sit as judges in the District Courts. The Minister touched on a point which I will cover in further amendments where I seek to introduce equality in terms of the multiplier element of the pension rights of judges for the District Court. In further sections we will talk about multipliers of one-twentieth, one-thirtieth and one-fortieth. I suggest that they should all stand at one-twentieth for all judges. In that regard the Gleeson Commission acknowledged that while the remuneration levels for judges should vary, depending on their status and the court level at which they sit, there should not be a differentiation with regard to pension rights. They suggested that once a judge retires, they are all equal. That is a good principle. All judges should be treated equally when they have retired.
I note that the Minister of State said there are issues of severe restraint on public expenses necessary. We will come to that in more detail later in the Bill. In equity, all judges should be dealt with on the same basis in retirement. I do not accept the Minister's argument.
An amendment just circulated by the Fine Gael Party has prompted me to say that it is good to put this legislation in place. The pension position of judges should be put on a proper basis so that we do not have the unseemly rounds of representations, negotiations, discussions and cajolings which led to the introduction of this legislation so long ago in 1984, and why it has had such a chequered and controversial history. Now that we are putting in place a comprehensive basis for pensions, it is only right that we address this issue of the equality of judges on retirement.
My amendment seeks to raise the issue, that we should abandon the term "justice" for judges of the District Court. They are judges under the Constitution. In the legislation somewhere along the way the concept of a "justice" was imported into the legislation on the English language side, for some odd reason.
I am sure the House will agree that it is not appropriate in a Bill like this to consider matters relating to the status of persons to whom the Bill refers. These are matters which may be raised with my Department. We are talking about a very important amendment if we are to change the title or status of a person. I have an open mind on it. We could just look at our own position. Some people would say that we are Deputies and more people would say we are TDs. It is a similar situation. I cannot accept Deputy McCartan's suggestion here. We can have consultations and perhaps on some other day we might be able to address the issue.
Now that I have raised this with the Department, perhaps the Minister would come back to me at some stage. At this stage I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I want the Minister's assurance that this Bill does not confer any new benefits on judges. Subsection (2) (a) says:
references to the remuneration of a judge or justice shall be construed as references to the remuneration of the judge or justice at the time he vacates his office;
I refer to the outrageous attack made on one judge in this Chamber, on Second Stage, I am deeply sorry that there are not more members of the press present so that somebody can defend a person who cannot defend himself. I am referring to ex-Chief Justice Tom O'Higgins who is now serving us in a very senior capacity in the European Court in Luxembourg. Recently I visited the court in Luxembourg with other members of the EC Committee and I can say without fear of contradiction that Judge Tom O'Higgins and Judge Barrington are held in the highest esteem.
It is often said that Irish people do well abroad and it is great for this country to have so many talented people abroad to uphold our reputation. We are fortunate to have in the courts in Luxembourg two judges who do just that. They are held in great respect by their fellow judges and our reputation has increased as a result of their presence. I very much regret the wild statements made by Deputy McCartan on Second Stage in relation to ex-Chief Justice Tom O'Higgins. It must be the first time in the history of the House that a Minister for Justice did not find it possible to defend somebody who has served us so well and to contradict the total inaccuracy of the statements made by Deputy McCartan. The Minister is present here this morning, but he was not present for Question Time and he does not turn up for Adjournment Debates. I do not know where the Minister goes. For a Deputy from The Workers' Party to make such statements with no foundation is nothing short of a disgrace.
What does Deputy McCartan mean by "representing the workers"? I would remind Deputy McCartan that anyone who serves this country on the Bench is a worker who pays PAYE and does not receive any more benefit than any other civil servant. On numerous occasions people talk about decisions made by various district justices, or judges of the Circuit Court or High Court. They say that judges should have training, that we need better quality judges, that they do not like judges' decisions and that we will have to do something about it. All this stuff is trotted out. If you pay peanuts you will get monkeys. Top civil servants in the commercial State sector or serving exceptionally in various Departments should be paid the top going rate. The same applies to members of the Judiciary whom we expect to leave practices making substantial amounts of money. Deputy McCartan knows the sort of money one can make as a practising solicitor especially if you are involved in the free legal aid system. From figures published recently it was quite obvious that Deputy McCartan's firm did very well, making in excess of £100,000 per annum. It is nothing short of scandalous to criticise a member of the Judiciary who served this country at various levels up to Chief Justice and to make totally inaccurate statements giving the impression to the public that this person was involved in a rip-off because the Taoiseach gave a commitment to him.
The four judges involved in this legislation deserve every single penny they are getting. This legislation is the same as that relating to civil servants. I should like the Minister to clarify a few points for me. How did Deputy McCartan decide, in the case of Mr. Justice O'Higgins, that his income from his pension would be in excess of £30,000 per annum? In the Official Report of 18 April 1991, column 425, Deputy McCartan said in relation to the former Chief Justice, Mr. Thomas F. O'Higgins:
...he will benefit from a judicial pension approaching £30,000 per year — now it will be more because of increments in the meantime — this, backdated, as promised under the provisions of the legislation, will offer the recipient, the person central to this whole issue, something in the order of a minimum of £250,000 lump sum on his retirement. That is what we are legislating for.
The Deputy made that statement and the media reported it without checking the facts. The Minister for Justice — I stress Justice — allowed those inaccurate statements without correcting them.
I should like him to comment on the following. In so far as it relates to Irish judges who have served — or are serving — on the nomination of the Irish Government at the Court of Justice of the European Communities, this Bill confers no new benefit or advantage. Will the Minister confirm that this is so?
Judicial pension rights for Irish judges accure, apart from incapacity or death, only on reaching the retirement age of 72 years for a High Court or Supreme Court judge. Most civil servants retire at 60 or 65 years of age. Will the Minister confirm that a judge who has 15 or more years' service on the Irish Bench may, at his option, take early retirement? The third point I want to raise is vitally important. Since Ireland's accession to the EC in 1973 four Irish judges have been nominated by the Government to serve in the EC Court — since 1989 two EC Courts have been established, both situated in Luxembourg. To take up these appointments, the judges had to retire from the Irish Bench before reaching normal retirement age. The judges in question were Mr. Chief Justice Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh in 1973-74, Mr. Justice Andreas O'Keeffe, President of the High Court from 1974-84 and Mr. Justice Thomas F. O'Higgins, who served from 1984 and who is due to retire next October. Mr. Justice Donal Barrington, High Court, was appointed to the new court of first instance established in 1989.
I stress that this legislation is not being brought in for one judge. Long before Mr. Justice O'Higgins received a commitment from any Taoiseach, commitments were given back in the seventies. If someone in that position continued to serve they would have automatically got a pension without any of this fuss and bother and without banner headlines in the newspapers. Because we wanted to send our best people to the EC they should not lose accrued pension rights for which they had already paid and to which they were entitled.
Because there was a flaw in the legislation the Taoisigh of the day — rightly — decided to do something about it. I refer to former Taoisigh Liam Cosgrave, Garret FitzGerald, and Jack Lynch and to the Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey. If a senior civil servant in exactly the same position was offered a post in Europe and took it, because of legislative differences he would have automatically got his pension rights. Because the legislation did not refer to members of the Judiciary, should we expect that somebody who served this country and who gave up very successful practices to serve on the Bench should forego his pension rights? We must remember that all the money these people get will be taxed. It is extraordinary that The Workers' Party attacked people who have paid for their pension rights and accrued them through years of service. It is nothing short of cheap publicity. The figures quoted were totally inaccurate and the Minister for Justice did not correct them.
I will again quote from the Official Report of 18 April 1991, column 424 where Deputy McCartan quoted the Minister as follows:
The Bill, which is broadly similar to one which was introduced in 1984 but which lapsed with the dissolution of the 24th Dáil, would honour a commitment made by the Taoiseach of the day, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, to a Member of the Judiciary who vacated office for the purpose of taking up a position with the European Communities. The commitment has since led to threats of legal action if not put in place.
The Minister for Justice did not tell the Dáil that when Mr. Justice Andreas O'Keeffe the then President of the High Court, took up a position in Europe back in the seventies he got a commitment from the then Taoiseach, Liam Cosgrave, because he had only nine years' service in his position in the High Court at that time. He was entitled to the benefit of those nine years, I am not complaining about that. This was purely an attack on Mr. Justice Thomas O'Higgins and the former Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald. It was nothing short of scandalous. I repeat, these commitments were given by former Taoisigh Liam Cosgrave, Jack Lynch and Garret FitzGerald and by the Taoiseach, Deputy Charles J. Haughey.
I praise all four for giving them to honour the people concerned, irrespective of their political background, be they of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour Party persuasion. They are honourable men and they served on the Bench in this country. At the invitation of the Government they went to Europe to represent us in the European Court.
These men have families and children and mortgages and have to make arrangements for their retirement just like everybody else. If they have paid their contributions they are entitled to receive their pensions regardless of whether they are serving on the Bench or sitting in an office of any State Department. The day we start criticising those who work for the State and do not give them what they are duly entitled to will be a sad one. I object to anyone using the occasion to look for cheap political gain and banner headlines which were totally and utterly inaccurate.
I hope the Minister of State is listening because there is one other point I want to make. The reason the Bill makes no reference to the late Chief Justice Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh is that he had completed 15 years' service when he left to go to Luxembourg and was automatically entitled to receive a pension. However, none of the other three judges had completed 15 years' service and continue to serve this country in the European Court. I ask the Minister of State to confirm that their service in the European Court will not be applicable for pension purposes under this legislation; in other words, this Bill will apply only to their service in the Irish courts. I also ask the Minister of State to confirm that an undertaking was given to Mr. Justice Aindreas O'Keeffe — who had nine years service — when he went to Europe in 1974 that legislation would be passed to correct the anomaly already outlined. I ask the Minister of State to confirm that a commitment was given to him that he would retain his pension rights. I would further ask the Minister of State to confirm that the same commitment was given to former Chief Justice Tom O'Higgins and to Judge Barrington when they went to Europe.
With regard to former Chief Justice Tom O'Higgins, who Deputy McCartan claimed was due a pension approaching £30,000 and a lump sum of £250,000 I would ask the Minister of State to confirm that in December 1984 when the Government gave a commitment to introduce the necessary legislation his pension was calculated at £16,028.95 which is a long way from £30,000. Like all other civil servants, he was also entitled to receive a gratuity. I would like the Minister of State to correct the information given out by Deputy McCartan the other day and to confirm that the former Chief Justice will not receive a pension of £30,000 and a lump sum of £250,000, that the legislation will apply to more than one judge and that commitments were given by others apart from Deputy Garret FitzGerald. I want the Minister of State, who is an honourable person, to stand up and defend the people——
And apologise.
——who have been asked by the Government to serve us abroad. They should not, because of some quirk in legislation, lose any benefits which they are entitled to receive in respect of their period of service prior to taking up their new position abroad. I would ask the Minister of State to confirm that they were no longer entitled to receive a pension once they left to go abroad. Those are vitally important questions and our friends in the media would do democracy a great favour if they correct the inaccurate statements made by reporting the statements that the Minister of State will make, which the Minister, Deputy Burke, failed to make, and my request.
I would like to say, on behalf of all on this side of the House, to each of those judges: "Thank you for the service you have given to the country. We will not take your political background into account, whether it be Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, as it is totally irrelevant. You did us proud and you are entitled to the benefits accrued during your period of service on the Irish Bench". I wish all four good luck.
I call on Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, to be followed by Deputy McCartan.
Deputy Garret FitzGerald would like to speak.
Deputy Barrett's remarks were primarily directed at me. I attempted to put the record straight.
The Deputy will get his opportunity.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
I have already indicated to the Deputy that he will be called after Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, who has been called.
Please find time for Deputy FitzGerald.
May I say that Deputy Garret FitzGerald has an important point to make on this matter?
Acting Chairman
I have called the Deputy. If he wishes to speak, he should do so now, please.
May I——
Acting Chairman
I have called Deputy O'Keeffe, to be followed by Deputy McCartan.
On a point of order, I already signalled to the Ceann Comhairle that I wished to speak next to defend my honour from attacks made in the House. As there are only 20 minutes remaining I would ask you——
Acting Chairman
If time permits, the Deputy will be called.
It may not be available——
Acting Chairman
That will depend on your colleague.
It depends on Deputy McCartan.
Acting Chairman
Deputy FitzGerald, you are wasting time. The Deputy will be called if time permits. Deputy O'Keeffe.
Can Deputy O'Keeffe give way to Deputy FitzGerald?
I have a particular point to make but in the circumstances I am prepared to yield to Deputy FitzGerald at this stage.
Acting Chairman
Once Deputy O'Keeffe concludes his speech I will call Deputy McCartan who has indicated——
I am prepared to yield to Deputy FitzGerald at this stage.
It is a tradition in the House that one Member can yield to another.
Because of the attacks made against his honour in this House I am prepared to yield to Deputy FitzGerald if he wishes to make a personal statement.
Acting Chairman
Once Deputy O'Keeffe has concluded I will call Deputy McCartan and then Deputy FitzGerald.
I have not begun yet.
I am being excluded from the debate.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy is not being excluded.
On a point of order, Deputy FitzGerald indicated before you took the Chair that he wished to speak.
Acting Chairman
I do not know who indicated that he wanted to speak.
Deputy McCartan has spoken four times whereas Deputy FitzGerald has not spoken yet.
The Deputy has had his day out.
The Deputy is trying to filibuster the debate so that nobody else can speak.
The Deputy grabbed the headlines.
Will you allow Deputy FitzGerald to make a personal statement?
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
My ruling is that Deputy O'Keeffe continues or concludes his contribution.
On a point of order, it is a strong tradition in this Parliament that one Member can give way to another. I gave way to Deputy De Rossa when asked to do so. I would ask that the former Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, be allowed to defend his honour.
Acting Chairman
That is not a point of order, Deputy.
It is.
Acting Chairman
I would ask the Deputy to resume his seat. I call on Deputy O'Keeffe to conclude his contribution.
Would you allow Deputy FitzGerald a few minutes?
I must protest. I was prepared to yield to the former Taoiseach. In addition, under the rules of the House a Member may make a personal statement. There has been allegations against the honour of Deputy Garret FitzGerald and I think it is altogether inappropriate in this situation that Deputy FitzGerald should not be given the opportunity of speaking.
There was never any question of that.
Acting Chairman
I am asking you, Deputy to continue making your contribution on the only relevant matter, which is the section.
I will do so having made my protest at the way the Chair has treated the former Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald.
In my view the independence of the Judiciary is part of the bedrock of our democratic system. In fact our Constitution requires very specifically that the remuneration and emoluments of the Judiciary will not be reduced during their term of office. This was specifically put in by the framers of the Constitution as part of their commitment to the democratic system and their acknowledgment of the role the Judiciary play in a democratic society. Unfortunately, begrudgery is one of our national characteristics and that is about the only characteristic that was displayed by the representative of The Workers' Party, Deputy McCartan, on Second Stage when he made such outlandish comments on this Bill. He quoted wildly exaggerated figures — apparently for the sake of cheap publicity and engaged in what I believe can only be described as populist panderings for the sake of acquiring that publicity.
That is an abuse of the procedures of this House and I join with my colleague, Deputy Barrett, in strongly condemning that abuse. What is even worse is that like myself, Deputy McCartan is a member of the legal profession and should therefore understand the importance of honouring undertakings given. Undertakings were given by various Taoisigh, the former Taoisigh Mr. Liam Cosgrave, Mr. Jack Lynch and Deputy Garret FitzGerald and by the present Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, in relation to this matter. In many ways undertakings are regarded in the legal profession as sacred, and in the same way I believe those undertakings should have been honoured without question.
Apart from the four judges mentioned, the same applies to the position of Judge Gleeson, of which he should be aware as well and in relation to whose pension an undertaking was also given by the then Taoiseach, Mr. Jack Lynch. To put the matter in proper perspective he is retired on a pension of £160 per week — partly because the undertaking given to him in relation to his services as chairman of the Employment Appeals Tribunal was not honoured and unfortunately so far it has not been honoured in this Bill. I will be pressing this issue further if I get the opportunity later, but as I may not get an opportunity later I mention it now because I feel it is disgraceful that that undertaking was not honoured.
Furthermore, it is deplorable that the allegations made by Deputy McCartan on Second Stage were not totally rebutted by the Minister for Justice. The Minister for Justice, Deputy Burke, said in his opening remarks and I quote: "These particular matters have been the subject of representations to my Department from the Judiciary and the court officers over a period of years and previous administrations also have been committed to their implementation." He was fully aware of the situation and yet when these wildly exaggerated statements were coming from Deputy McCartan, the Minister for Justice made no effort to rebut them, a disgraceful performance on his part.
In case anyone wants to suggest or there is any residue of doubt that we on this side of the House are speaking on behalf of a particular judge who happened to have been a former Member of this House on behalf of our party, that is not so. The original undertaking given in this House was given to Judge Andreas O'Keeffe — no relation, in fact a son-in-law of Eamon de Valera — in 1974 by the then Taoiseach, Mr. Liam Cosgrave. That man is retired seven years and he is still without the pension to which he is entitled. It is absolutely essential that we put the record straight.
I will conclude as I began. I believe that Deputy Garret FitzGerald's name has been dragged before this House in such a fashion that entitles him to set the record straight and I ask that he, in particular be given that opportunity.
I regret that the debate has to conclude at 12 noon. This had not our agreement and I would like to have had more opportunity to pursue these issues. They do not take me by surprise. Deputy Barrett was not here the last day but in the interim he used whatever opportunity he could to let us know that he was not very pleased with what had been said on the day.
I want to put the record straight on this issue. The Workers' Party welcomed in general terms the provisions of the legislation and I do so today. The idea of bringing the pension rights of the Judiciary into line with other people's entitlements is only proper, and I stated so on at least four occasions on the record of this House, which Deputy Barrett has so selectively quoted from this morning. I did not make Judge Tom O'Higgins the central character of this debate.
You did.
He was mentioned because of the way——
His character was assassinated.
——in which pensions generally had been dealt with and the way his particular position was dealt with, and more particularly because the Government of which Deputy Barrett was a member, could do nothing with this legislation from 1984, when it was first introduced, to 1987 when he and the government went out of office. He has not explained in this House today why for three years he, as a member of the Government of which Deputy Garrett FitzGerald was also a member, could do nothing with such an eminent and sensible piece of legislation which so late in the day they now say, as Deputy Cotter did and as Senator Manning said in the Seanad, should be nodded through without debate and discussion and without any amendment whatsoever.
The Deputy knows why that is the way.
I want to hear the reason because I was not a member of the Dáil until 1987 and I would like to know why the Government of the day could do nothing with the legislation if it is so eminently sensible as has been suggested. Deputy Barrett seems to hang his argument entirely on the suggestion that there is absolutely nothing in this legislation which gives to members of the Judiciary — there are 24 and not four as he has suggested — particular rights that exist only for senior member of the Civil Service elsewhere. That is correct except in one fundamental and important provision, that is, in respect of the retrospective provisions in this legislation. In no other pension scheme or other legislation, including the Pensions Bill which was debated in this House last year was any provision in regard to retrospection provided for any member of the Civil Service. Those whose positions were corrected and improved got no benefit by way of retroactive provision, and that is the one single criticism that our party have levelled against the legislation in principle, and it is the one of ten we have sought to amend in the legislation but we have not been allowed to debate our amendment. I note there is no other amendment from the Fine Gael Party or from the Labour Party, the Coalition partners who promoted this legislation in the first instance, beyond a latter day amendment that was circulated this morning addressing another outrageous neglect——
They paid for and contributed to the scheme.
——on the part of Fine Gael and the Labour Party in Coalition, that of an undertaking which we were told by Deputy O'Keeffe this morning was so honourable in concept, the undertaking given to the former Judge Gleeson as acting chairman of the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
The same as was given to any worker.
Nothing was done by Deputy Barrett or other members of that Coalition Government when in office over the period despite an undertaking given by the Taoiseach of the day in 1979 to that member of the Judiciary. Nothing was done.
Why does the Deputy object to the status of that undertaking?
I object to the retrospective effect of this legislation.
There is no retrospection.
Anything given is given from the date of the undertaking.
There is retrospection and the Deputy has not read the legislation.
Acting Chairman
Deputy McCartan without any further interruption.
The Deputy clearly has not read the legislation and if we are talking about distorting the facts, it is he who is doing so. I have no hesitation in saying that. I may well have got my figures wrong but I make no apology for that.
The Deputy got his headlines.
I worked on the basis of information available to me. Deputy Barrett persists in his argument that there are only four judges involved in this legislation. How then does he divide four into £500,000, which we are told will be the cost of implementing this legislation in the first year? Thereafter it will cost £100,000 per year. How does he justify those figures?
Provision must be made for widows and orphans as well.
When this legislation was circulated in 1984 in its first life, the Government did not publish an explanatory memorandum to accompany the Bill. They would not tell us what the implications were. When it came before the Seanad the Fine Gael spokesman made no effort to question the Minister on the fact that the legislation was before the House because of the threat of legal action by the person who is central to this debate, Mr. Justice O'Higgins. I came into this House with no information having been provided by questioning in the Seanad, without an explanatory memorandum or an explanation by the Minister for Justice but with statements from the former——
(Interruptions.)
Totally false allegations.
Acting Chairman
Deputies are continually interrupting. It serves no purpose. Deputy Barrett, repeat what you said or leave the House.
On what basis can I be asked to leave the House?
Acting Chairman
Because of the remark you made to the Chair. You spoke with disrespect to the Chair.
How do you know I made a remark to the Chair?
Acting Chairman
You told the Chair to sit down and keep his mouth shut.
I did not do that.
Acting Chairman
I am asking you to leave the House, Deputy Barrett.
Withdraw the remark.
Will you let the debate go on?
Acting Chairman
Deputy O'Keeffe, there have been far too many interruptions. Deputy Barrett was disrespectful to the Chair. It was unbecoming to make such a remark to the Chair.
I have been asked by the Fine Gael Whip to make my comments brief to enable Deputy FitzGerald to make a contribution. I have no difficulty about that but if I am to be barracked and not allowed to make my point, then I will have difficulty in finishing. I listened with patience, without interrupting, to the remarks of Deputy Barrett and I want to put my position on record. I will argue my case until I have made my point.
Acting Chairman
I would ask the Deputy to speak to the issue.
The retrospective provisions are the fundamental part of the legislation. No other legislation in this House has provided such facility to people in the public service. That is the difference. There was a precedent in 1968 when the late Mr. Justice Fitzgerald was provided for in legislation which makes this House a laughing stock. Section 1 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) (Amendment) Act states that the period from 6 October 1966 to 26 March 1978, a period of about eleven and a half years, should be 15 years for the purposes of the then Chief Justice so that he could get his full pension. That is the kind of precedent being foisted on us. The Workers' Party have difficulty about the retrospective element of this Bill.
The former Tánaiste, Deputy Lenihan, described the legislation in 1984 as an act of insanity. The current Minister for Justice who is promoting this legislation was quoted inThe Irish Times in October 1990 as describing the actions of Mr. Justice O'Higgins as holding the Government to ransom in demanding payment of retrospective pension rights. In those contexts I make no apology for seeking to establish some facts and detail. I have asked the same questions as Deputy Barrett. I was also disappointed that the Minister with responsibility did not provide the information.
A guillotine has been placed on this Committee Stage debate and there is no opportunity for Report Stage, yet the full implications of this legislation have not been stated. In principle, retrospection of pensions is wrong in this instance and it has never been provided in any other instance. It is wrong that we are being asked to legislate without the full facts in terms of the cost to the Exchequer.
Acting Chairman
I want to remind Deputy FitzGerald that a Member when called upon may give way but cannot nominate the Member whom he wishes to speak.
I wish to defend myself against the implications of the Minister for Justice and the allegations of Deputy McCartan. I came into politics 26 years ago on a principle which I intended to adhere to throughout my political life, that no relative or friend of mine would ever benefit in any way by virtue of my holding public office. I have held to that principle and I deeply resent the allegations made against me which were encouraged by the Minister for Justice.
The Minister for Justice in introducing the debate in the Seanad put this legislation down to a commitment made by me to a member of the Judiciary in 1984. I entered into no fresh commitment in this matter. As the Minister knew and did not disclose there or in this House, that commitment was entered into by the then Taoiseach, Mr. Cosgrave, when Mr. Cearbhall O Dálaigh became President and had to be replaced in the European Court. Mr. Justice O'Keeffe did not have the necessary pensionable service and could not easily take up the post, which involved giving up potential rights. Mr. Justice O'Keeffe had been a Fianna Fáil Attorney General and there was no political involvement of any kind. The then Taoiseach, Mr. Cosgrave, entered into a commitment to introduce this legislation so that Mr. Justice O'Keeffe's position would be protected. Mr. Justice O'Keeffe is now many years retired and has not touched one penny of that pension. For that a number of us are to blame, myself included, in that I did not get the legislation through. I feel a sense of shame at having failed to get it through.
I entered into no fresh commitment. Mr. Justice O'Higgins asked me at the time if that commitment would be honoured and I said yes of course I would honour the commitment given by my predecessor as Taoiseach. It was also entered into by Mr. Lynch as Taoiseach. The suggestion that I entered into any fresh commitment is unfounded and the allegations repeatedly made by Deputy McCartan that I was involved in cosy discussions with a friend, that cajoling pressures were brought to bear and that the arrangement was a personal one with the Government involved, are totally unfounded.
It was a question, not an allegation.
Apologise.
They were not questions, they were allegations. I think Deputy McCartan knows me well enough to know they were unfounded allegations. The Minister for Justice knew that and when he came to reply to the debate he did not disclose the fact that the commitment had been entered into in respect of the former Fianna Fáil Attorney General, Mr. Justice O'Keeffe, but allowed those slurs to remain on the record, as he did on a television programme at the end of last year. I reject these accusations. The only action I took was to confirm that we would introduce the legislation. I failed to do so and I am ashamed of that. I apologise here to Mr. Justice O'Keeffe for the fact that he has been deprived of what he is entitled to and was promised by successive Governments. I bear part of the blame, as do other Taoisigh of the period. I have no apology to make to the Minister for Justice who set out to traduce me in this House by his deliberate omission of the truth.
I am very disappointed that this debate has devolved on personalities. None of us should be in a position to talk about people outside this House.
(Interruptions.)
I did not interrupt anybody and I do not want interruptions now. I can assure the House that in no way does this Bill provide pension benefits to or in respect of judges or justices except in so far as they have earned them by their service or potential service for which they have paid in this country.
The proposals in section 5 of the Bill will benefit those persons mentioned by Deputy Barrett but they will benefit many other people also. They will also benefit persons who retired without right to pension. Approximately 30 judges will benefit from arrears under the provisions of the Bill. One reference has been made to Mr. Justice Gleeson. Mr. Justice Gleeson's pension will be increased from approximately £160 per week at the moment to something in excess of £240 as a result of this Bill being passed.
(Interruptions.)
I am satisfied that the pension is related to Irish service only and that it will become payable at the time of normal retirement age. In regard to the people who have been mentioned I wish on behalf of the Government and of all of us to acknowledge the tremendous service they have given to the country.
At last.
Not "at last" for me. I speak for myself. With regard to former Chief Justice O'Higgins, his pension will be approximately £25,000 and nothing like the figures that have been indicated.
Acting Chairman
As it is now 12 noon I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Justice for Committee Stage and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; in respect of each of the sections undisposed of other than section 8 that the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee, that the Title is hereby agreed to in Committee, that the Bill, as amended, is hereby reported to the House, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."
We will be voting "Níl" on that question for two reasons, first, because of the guillotine and, secondly, because these are retrospective provisions——
Acting Chairman
There is no provision for discussion at this point.
There is no retrospection in the Bill.
Acting Chairman
Sílim go bhfuil an rún roite.
Deputies
Vótáil.
Will the Deputies who claim a division in respect of this matter please rise in their places?
Deputies Byrne, De Rossa, Gilmore, McCartan, Mac Giolla, Sherlock and Rabbitte rose.
As fewer than ten Deputies have risen I declare the question carried. The names of the Deputies who claimed the division will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the House.
This Bill which is considered by virtue of Article 20.2.2º of the Constitution to be a Bill initiated in Dáil Éireann will now be sent to the Seanad.